AIBU to feel horrified at the number of Motability vehicles being provided?

No, this country is not like a business! It is an issuer of currency, which no business can do; it has a range of levers at its disposal and it has to consider the macroeconomic effects of what it does:

neweconomics.org/2018/10/a-government-is-not-a-household

As pp have pointed out, it’s leased not bought for you. DD1 has a life threatening condition and can die at any time. All it takes is for her to get too hungry or cold or stressed or bored, etc. (Any reason why she’s not in 100% good condition) The last thing we can afford to happen is for the car to break down, and we be stuck for several hours in a freezing cold car, waiting for the roadside assistance! We could end up calling 999 to her before then!

It is beyond my comprehension how anyone can be jealous of her, for having a brand new car, when she could die in her sleep tonight in her 30s? She can’t drink alcohol, smoke, have sex, work, choose where and who she lives with, have children, go out when and where she wants, or have any purpose in life. She also knows, she cannot do all the things, we can do! It is a never ending source of grief to her!

How can anyone think a new car makes up for all those losses? (Actually, a new car is meaningless to her; she doesn’t understand number plates anyway)

It feels at times like people deliberately ignore the fact that a) the car is never owned and b) money (quite a lot on some cases, it would appear) has to be paid upfront.

(No skin in the game - do not have a Motability car as I can no longer drive as medically unfit and can still get in and out of an ordinary car.)

Their circumstances have no effect on your life though, so why focus on what your neighbours are doing? Do what you can to improve your own life, even if that just involves changing your mindset, a bit.

I think they use new cars because they don't sell that many, most people buy second hand. By using them for Motability they get thousands of pounds to begin with and then a nearly new (well maintained) car to make another huge profit on after.

It doesn't though The car is leased at a price that makes the dealer a profit. We get the car for three years and then hand it back. So we get the use of a new car for three years for a bit under 4k per year. I need a bigger car as we have three kids so paid an £800 extra lump sum up front (we sold our old car spares and repairs for that).

It's only worth doing if you need a reliable car and really can't lease or finance a cheaper one elsewhere (due to low earnings caused by disability perhaps). I don't care how new my car is, I couldn't give a shit. I just need it to run so that I can participate in the world outside my front door.

They can't buy you it - they can only lease you it and as I think several posters have pointed out (correct me if I'm wrong), and you can lease some of the same cars new for less outside the scheme (maybe an option for you?). The more expensive models can be leased but with a down payment to be paid privately by the leaser.

There are probably multiple reasons that only new or almost new cars are available through Motability, not least that if someone is dealing with severe disability (either their own or that of someone they care for) then they may not have the capacity to deal with the issues that are more likely to arise from second hand cars, like more frequent break downs etc. Shit for everyone of course, but vastly worse when you have several autistic, learning disabled toddlers who doesn't understand what's going on becoming highly distressed in the back. Or for someone who has ME and has enough energy to safely get somewhere but will put their health at risk if they have to expend extra energy dealing with the break down services. And also, their business model makes money this way because from what I understand, they then sell the cars on.

It's leased and goes back after 3 years and is usually then sold second hand. The resale value obviously isn't going to be the same if it starts out second hand.

But why can benefits buy a brand new car worth tens of thousands?
My earnings ( that I need a car to get work to work ) only gets me a second hand car with a 2012 plate.

My neighbour and his wife haven’t worked in over 40 years. He apparently has a bad back. Brand new mobility car and a 3 bed council house. They have lived in it for over 30 years.
His bad back didn’t stop him laying a patio in his garden.
I’m leaving for work at 6am in the dark, they are still tucked up in bed. Yes, it does piss me off.

I didn't specify a wealth tax - I said we should get better at effectively taxing the super rich. Their wealth grows every year by vast amounts and many pay less income tax as a percentage than a nurse or a teacher. And we don't need them to pay for the entire welfare bill - a fraction of it would go a long way but obviously it does need to be on an ongoing basis. Many of our wealthiest citizens have indicated they're behind the idea. There's also no reason to limit it to the richest 350 - there are an infinite number of options in terms of where the lines are drawn. A number of world renowned economists believe this to be possible and I struggle to believe it wouldn't be when you look at the complexity of what's been achieved in other fields. Even if you raised less than you hoped to, any reduction in the obscene wealth some are using to sway elections and buy up assets distorting economies for ordinary people would be in the interests of the majority. If we don't manage to do this though it will be people working in jobs like nursing and teaching who will likely have to pay a lot more and anyone with even a little to pass on will have more and more taken off them by inheritance tax.

You do realise that they have to use all their benefit to pay for the car! Its not free!

I’d suggest we have an adult conversation, without anyone shrieking “feckless and lazy” or anyone else shrieking “jealous” and “tax the rich” and actually do the sums.
What we have and what we can afford. This country is a business, and like any other business it has income and outgoings. We have the ability, to a certain extent, to forecast what we will need. It is nuanced of course. The government doesn’t actually make any money, it has the job of allocating the money earned by other people and people can always change their behaviour. Similarly, world events have an enormous effect.
That said, with the information we have, we need to genuinely reflect on what our income is, where it actually comes from, how we can increase it and how we can efficiently allocate our outgoings.
What do you suggest?

What would you suggest?

Have you ever applied for PIP?

If, as according to you, it’s so easy to get, why are there so many tribunals; and why of the cases, that go all the way to a hearing, do 65 - 67% of claimants win? That is not the odd error by the DWP? It suggests the decision makers are not evaluating the evidence properly on a grand scale!

The total fraud rate for PIP is 1.4%, of which individual claimant fraud is 0.7%. It’s less than is lost by tax evasion. Why aren’t you complaining about the black economy - that is definitely a lifestyle choice?

No. I don’t think taxing the super rich will achieve anything. The richest 350 people in the UK have total assets of around £750bn. Even if the government managed to seize all of it and “redistribute” it, that would pay our welfare bill for two years. What then? When it’s all spent, what happens?

Thank you so much for the suggestion, shes desperate and would try almost anything.
I really do appreciate you sharing, im also really glad you have found something that helps you.

This poster hasent been back to explain ,the morals aspect .I too would be intersted to understand the morals aspect as if a person is eligible for HRM the payment is £80/ week wether you choose a car or not.

I agree. We're seeing huge rises in genuine disability across society and we should expect spending in this area to be going up. Given we've put men on the moon and satellites in space I struggle to believe we can't work out how to effectively tax the super rich. They're the ones who've got the money to solve many of the world's problems and most of them wouldn't miss the amounts some economists have suggested be taken. And many of them are more than willing to be part of the solution. The gains from huge increases in productivity over the last 50 years should be shared more equitably by society and this is one of the most obvious areas for some proper redistribution of wealth. I know quite a few disabled people in real life by the way and none of them have a motability car. Most don't qualify despite being too disabled to work by things like stroke, POTS, ME/CFS, schizophrenia and bipolar.

Oh excellent, I look forward to total transparency on any and all taxpayer funded stuff... so you'll be publishing what you spent your child benefit on, full medical records so we can see if the tax payer funded NHS treatment you've had over the years is justified, did you previously get tax credits - yep, show us what you spent those on...

Do you have even the tiniest inkling how ridiculous this idea is? Taxpayers money is spent on all sorts of things - you can know the broad split, but knowing that Susan from Tring cost the NHS 40K to repair both her knees following a skiing disaster in Val Thorens, or Steve from Chorley spent his tax credits on a new TV and getting the back bedroom turned into a sex dungeon is absolutely bizarre.

If you don't like how the UK spends taxpayer money you have two options - 1 vote for a different gang to run it differently or 2 - piss off to a country that will have you and runs its funding differently.

Aye, sorry, what have morals got to do with it please? She costs the taxpayer exactly the same whether she has a car or not, but if she had a car she's putting money back in to the economy, providing jobs...

Or do you mean she is in fact donating her mobility payment to charity as she does not need it?

I am willing to bet a fair bit she is not doing this.

But, a problem is looming. More and more people are applying for and being awarded benefits. The vast majority are genuine, I’ve no doubt. But the uncomfortable fact is that advances in medical care have out paced provision in social care.
For example, I’ve seen, on MN and IRL, exhausted parents caring for adult disabled children. For £86 per week or whatever pittance Carers allowance is. It’s not sustainable for them, it is literally life shortening. And when the parents pass away? The care requirements will revert to the state. What then? What provision do we have for those disabled people who will absolutely need it? And that is without the discussion around older people living longer. Do you not think this might affect the % of GDP that we spend?
There are simply not enough people earning enough money to bring in enough tax to provide what will absolutely be needed.

And if they can't, What's the alternative? Or do we just starve?

and you think that is going to save money?

I'd have no choice but to seek out hospital transport, social care etc instead which....also costs the state money.